Tenants of commercial premises were not liable for extensive damage caused by vandalism.
Supreme Court judgment of 16 June 2026, HR-2026-1344-A (case no. 25-189375SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against Frostating Court of Appeal’s judgment of 12 September 2025.
Falkenborgvegen 28 AS, Protector Forsikring ASA (advocate Thomas Myran) v. the State, represented by the Directorate of Labour and Welfare (the Office of the Attorney General acting through advocate Ole Kristian Rigland), Trondheim Municipality, Svenska Kommun Försäkrings AB (advocate Gustav Johan Selmer)
NAV and Trondheim municipality leased joint premises in Trondheim. After two individuals set fire to a sofa in the reception area, the sprinkler system was triggered, causing water damage amounting to several million kroner. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the loss was to be borne by the tenants and their insurer or the landlord and the landlord's insurer.
The Supreme Court held that the lease agreement, which was based on a standard form for commercial leases (the “broker standard”), did not require the tenants to remedy the damage. The damage was of such a nature and extent that it did not fall within the tenants’ maintenance obligations in the event of vandalism. Nor were the tenants liable on the basis that the damage had been caused by persons to whom they had granted access to the building. Such liability would have required a breach of the lease, and no breach had been invoked.
The judgment provides guidance on the interpretation of the broker standard, which has similarities with Statsbygg’s standard contract.
Read the judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF)
Area of law: Tort law
Key paragraphs: 24, 45, 51, 52
Justices: Øie, Bergsjø, Arntzen, Thyness, Sæther